A CANDID REVIEW OF REPUBLICAN AND

 

DEMOCRATIC VIEWS UPON MAJOR

 

POLITICAL ISSUES

 

          The issues of the day, here on July 8, 2010, facing all of us, are: 1.) Have the Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee draw enough blood from Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagen, a former Dean of Harvard Law School,  to require her to get a transfusion; 2.) Whether the President be able  to convince his own Party of the need for a further economic stimulus–in light of the great unemployment to “jump start” the Nation’s economic engine and, hopefully, get things moving a little faster; and 3.) Has the President’s performance in the Gulf Oil Spill disaster exhibited sufficient gravitas? 

 

            I have to admit that I am completely frustrated because I see all, or at least many, of the issues which divide us in America today and which lead to confrontations and much, much dispute…even anger.  What I have discovered, however, is that often if one looks at all of the issues, it is not any one issue that defines a person in such as way as to predict that he or she will be “conservative” or “liberal” on all the other issues that are so volatile today.  The best example I can readily think of relates to what I call a “bait and switch” pulled by the Bush-Cheney Administration during the 2000 and then the 2004 elections.  In each election a political party looks for constituencies, or groups of persons whom they try to convert to their party because of something they believe in deeply, while to the new constituency’s surprise the party had no intention to act on that particular issue in the first event.  In 2000 and 2004 it was “putting the Bible back into the schools” and other “faith-based” programs. 

 

            This recruiting ploy brought millions of well-meaning Christians into the Bush-Cheney or Neo-Conservative camp when, in fact: 1.) the Republican Party had no intent to attend to this constituency’s interest, and 2.) it caused these good people to be aligned with the racists, with those encouraging torture of all prisoners (Americans and foreign nationals alike), and those not discerning enough (by 2004) to see the dangers in throwing away our Constitution  and its protection of all citizens whenever the Executive Branch (President) decided there were “exigent” circumstances. 

 

            The Founding Fathers created a “miracle” in the founding of the United States with a representative form of government controlled by three co-equal branches of government, the vaunted “separation of powers” doctrine.  But these fundamental Christians discovered after the fact that they had been “used” and unknowingly aligned with persons such as Messrs. Bush and Cheney who wanted to tear up these protections, this form of Government which have been the marvel of the world and has made the United States the longest lasting and largest democracy in the world.  They (and, candidly, the few members of our Congress who conspired with them) tried mightily to convert the United States into what they called a “unitary executive” form of government, while, in fact, it would have made the United States into simply another “tin horn” dictatorship.  If one takes a “long lens” view of governments around the world, he or she will recall and recognize that there is a very slight and fine line between a “temporary” dictatorship (or unitary executive) and a permanent one.  What is happening in Honduras, as we “speak,” is a good example of what almost happened to our wonderful Country.  Perhaps the last sentence is an overstatement, a little bit of hyperbole, but the historical events did take place as stated, and we were clearly at least “on the road” toward that sad end until the Presidential elections results of 2008 were in.

 

            It seems more than clear to me, then, and anyone may differ, that it is always a mistake for any person to give or “sell” his or her vote because of one issue, a “hot button” issue–no matter how strongly they may feel about it.   One must determine where their vote shall go upon an analysis of each and every issue they may see and how they feel about where the candidate or candidates or the party in question stands on each one.   Perhaps the hot button issue is still enough to determine the result—but I suggest in many instances a comprehensive analysis by each voter will result in a government which greater protect everyone’s interests.

 

            So, in an attempt to help each of us really think through all of this, I have made my best effort to figure out just what issues mean the most to Americans at the moment and which, as always, are subject to division, or different ways of thinking.  These are the ones that seem to divide us, and it is my hope that merely by looking at the different parties positions on ALL of these issues, we will be better prepared to see where we really want to be.  To that end I have listed each major political issue of the last Presidential campaign and of the first six plus months of the Obama Administration that I can recall at the moment.  And then I attempt to accurately set forth so-called “Republican” and Neo-Con positions and so-called “Democratic” positions. 

 

            I strongly suspect that if each of us examines each issue and the view of each “Party” upon it, he or she will find that even if he or she has a strongly held position with which he or she identifies in one of the two parties or interest groups, he or she will also feel strongly in favor of some of the positions held by the other party as well.  This is kind of like a self-graded “homework assignment” in that by looking at how many positions we have in common with our ostensible political foes in the “other” party, the conclusion each of us will likely reach is that we have so much more in common with one another than with the many positions of the National Parties–which is actually the very last thing that the professional politicians want us to recognize or understand!

           

Republican/Conservative                      Democrat/Liberal/”Humanist”Positions

 Points of View

 

 

I. Unrestrained Capitalism versus Reasonable Social Policy/

and Social Policy is not “Socialism”

 

 

A.  Republican Party asserts that unfettered capitalism with private business in charge of most societal functions is best for society as a whole; such assertions include the expansion of privately owned security-military forces to perform duties heretofore only performed by the United States Government;

  

B. Democratic Party asserts that without reasonable regulation in the public interest, private greed will unduly cant societal benefits in favor of the few, to the detriment of the many; further, only government is equipped to provide mass programs for the benefit of society in whole; it must be recognized that government regulation is only needed or appropriate with regard to businesses that are “particularly affected with a public interest;” examples of such functions that can only be done by government include water plants, highway planning and construction, providing for police and fire protection and National Defense, food and drug inspection, regulation of the lawfulness and fairness of certain business practices-insurance, banking, securities, even rescuing the society through affirmative action (”stimulus”) for which no private entity is equipped, e.g. reform failed financial markets and give financial grants to government and business–or, as some say, to “prime the pump…;”

   

 

II. Religion in Public Life

 

A.  Republican Party asserts that the United States is a “Christian Nation” and that God must be returned to the “classroom”, to our courthouses and to American life in general; many adherents of this view feel that it is the proper role of government to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” or “creationism” as science and to prohibit the teaching of Evolution; others propose merely that both views be taught as theory;

 

B. Democratic Party asserts the “Establishment” clause of the First Amendment prevents Government from supporting or preferring one religion over another, i.e., establishing an official State religion OR requiring that persons follow any religion at all; believe that while the Founding Fathers were, in the main, Christian, they had the wisdom to recognize that a great nation had to be open to persons of all religions and the right of all Men to worship as he or she wishes–thus the wording of the Second Amendment which establishes absolute freedom in this regard; since evolution is supported by most scientific evidence, it must be taught in the public schools as science, while creationism may properly be taught as part of comparative religion studies, as it, like all religion, is not a matter of provable fact, but, rather, a matter of faith;        

 

 

III. Immigration and Law Enforcement

 

 

A. Republican Party promotes a policy whereby the United States “must” forcibly return all “illegal” immigrants (ire is mostly focused at the moment upon Hispanics) to their Country of origin; recently an extreme sub-group has expressed its wish that the citizenship of the children born in the U.S. to one or more illegal immigrants have their citizenship revoked; asserts the wisdom of denying all welfare benefits to illegal

immigrants; wish to treat all such persons as criminal; and demand that English be declared the “Official” language of the United States; 

 

B. Democratic Party asserts that U.S. is a “Nation of Immigrants” and without the sequential heritage of e.g., Dutch, German, English, Turkish, Jewish, Iranian, Lebanonese, Spanish, French, Native American, Italian, Swiss, Swedish, African, Chinese, West Indian, East Indian, Scottish, Polish and Irish, the U.S. would never have acquired its riches and pool of talent due to having become the “melting pot” of the World; that every wave of immigrants has, in sequence, been met with resentment of “those already here;” that the  latest Hispanic immigrants differ from earlier waves (all simply seeking better lives for their families) only in that they did not have a vast ocean to cross—in some cases only having to walk across an un-marked land border, in others swim over a narrow and almost dry river; but in some cases submit themselves to great danger to cross in populated or desert areas, all sacrifices most Americans “already here” would gladly have made for their own families; by no religious, traditional or humanistic analysis are these persons ”criminals.;” whether there is an ”official” language is essentially inconsequential;  the best solution to all of these issues is for the United States to finally secure its borders and enforce immigration policy and work visa programs–which have all been ignored by governments headed by both parties for more than forty years because of big farming interests protecting their supply of migrant labor;

 

 

 

IV. Race, Pubic Policy and Security

 

 

A. Republican Party asserts that Blacks, Hispanics and Middle Easterners are inferior beings not entitled to the rights Caucasians and that all such peoples should either be segregated from Whites or deported; some assert that most if not all Arab or Middle Eastern-looking persons must be presumed to be terrorists bent upon killing Americans and other Caucasians and Asians;                                                                                   

 

 

B.  Democratic Party asserts that all homo sapiens are genetically the same  as Caucasians, and such differences as exist are due to cultural, religious and environmental influences; and that there are, of course, fanatics of every skin color and every religion;

  

 

V.  Imperialism and Torture

 

A. Republican Party asserts that the United States has the special right to impose its will and its beliefs upon the rest of the World, such as by implanting Democracy in a Middle Eastern Country as a “seed” by which it will grow the region into good people;  the U.S., unlike any other Nation, may torture captives (either Americans or foreigners) in any military or quasi-military conflict to elicit information which “…might save American lives…;”  also, objection to these policies and beliefs is either naive or subversive of the interests of the U.S.; also, the U.S. may by military, clandestine or covert machination support coups or changes of any other country’s government to make any other nation its dependency…

 

B. Democratic Party asserts that nothing in international law, U.S. law or “Natural Law” give these rights to the United States; in fact, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the Constitution, Federal statutory law and Treaties (many of which apply to torture) constitute the Supreme Law of the United States–this law negates every assumption set forth by the Neo-Conservatives and, by extension, the Republican Party on this issue; also, Amendment VIII to the Constitution prohibits any cruel and unusual punishments such as torture;

                                                  

 

VI. Suspend Laws in “Exigent” Times

 

A. Republican Party insists that in extreme times the Constitution and other laws of the United States may be ignored…such as the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, the prohibition of assassination of foreign leaders, The Executive may rule the Nation without the input of the Congress or the Courts in such times …as the Executive Branch may deem emergencies; 

 

B. Democratic Party asserts that if we forget or ignore the Constitution, ”we become as they;” it is the Constitution and our voluntary adherence to it that makes us who we are and if we choose to ignore it, WE are the criminals;   

 

 

VII. Social Policy or “Socialism?

 

A.  Republican Party posits that all welfare programs, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, pubic schools, and any public interference with private enterprise as “socialism”;  also, if people are poor and destitute, that is simply a matter of their choice; if a man wants to work, he always can; 

 

B. Democratic Party affirms that such programs and acts and programs are “ameliorative social policy” and not “socialism” and well within the power of  representative democratic government to maintain a healthy economy, “full” employment, and the health and at least minimal welfare of the poorest of our citizens; and, sometimes people cannot work and support themselves or their families because of illness, drug dependence, lack of requisite physical or mental faculties or training, or injuries incurred serving in the military;  and in no instance should the United States be in the position of condemning such persons or their children to starve or live upon heating exhausts in the winters of Washington , D.C. in particular (which I have personally witnessed) or any city in general;  Socialism is, by the way, actually a way of government where both the means of production and the distribution of all goods and services are controlled by a central government; but the Republicans hide this simple truth from their constituent/targets.  There is a vast difference between socialism and  representative democracy with social policies designed to assist its citizens which in no way affects the economic system.

 

 

VIII. Abortion and “Right to Life”

 

 

A.  Republican Party (and the Catholic Church) assert that no woman may abort a fetus under any circumstances after the time it is conceived–for to do so is murder;

 

 B. Democratic Party asserts the right of any woman to under an   circumstances at any time abort a fetus, as the fetus is part of the body of the woman, and it is not to be considered apart therefrom; others assert that abortion be allowed in circumstances such as pregnancy due to rape or incest or in the event the child would be born with any of several horrific disability or diseased conditions; proponents of both arguments agree that abortion must be had before the fetus is viable;

                                                                                                                                                     

 

IX. Healthcare Reform

 

 

A.  Republican Party insists that and bureaucrats do not have the ability, intelligence or expertise to operate a healthcare delivery system or a program of insurance attendant thereto; and even if they did, the costs and inefficiencies of such a system would be horrific …even astronomical; the effort to reform healthcare delivery would create “socialized medicine” and force citizens to attend physicians not of their choosing; persons would be disinclined to become physicians and such would ultimately do away with a healthcare system in the U.S.; in no event can the government properly inject itself into the healthcare insurance market, for without the efficiency provided by the profit motive, it would, albeit inefficiently, deliver coverage and benefits cheaper than private carriers and force private insurers out of business–and that would be an unconstitutional “taking;” the Republicans still plan to either repeal or use their connections on K-Street and with the Pharmaceutical , Medical and Insurance lobbies to denude the health care reform of any substantial meaning.

 

B. Democratic Party insists that the reform of the U.S. healthcare delivery system now underway is one that must be effectuated to correct the former reality that the United States has for over ne half a century been burdened by the most  ineffective and inefficient healthcare system in the World–despite the fact that we have had the finest doctors and the best medical training in the World; the flaws of the system now under reform are shown by the fact U.S. suffers from the lowest percentage of its citizens with insurance in the Western World and suffers from the highest infant mortality rate in the Western world; the reasons persons do not have access to healthcare is that the United States is the only country in the Western World that ties healthcare availability to the ability to pay; i.e., unless one is very wealthy or has health insurance, many cannot receive healthcare unless they are employed  by  some quite large employer which offers healthcare insurance on a “non-underwritten” basis, he or she may not be covered for pre-existing conditions; further, in most Western Countries, the ability to access healthcare is seen as a right of citizenship—not something to be auctioned off to a lowest bidder or be denied because someone is poor; finally, it must be noted that the U.S. is one of the few countries in the World that even allows the operation of “for profit” hospitals or other healthcare facilities;

 

 

X. The Second Amendment and Guns

 

 

A.  Republican Party asserts that the Federal Government under the new Obama Administration actively intends to outlaw private firearm ownership (this fear is confirmed by an enormous spike in the sale of firearms in the U.S.); asserts that this would violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution; believe that the enactment of strict gun control legislation by either the state or the Federal Government would presage the establishment of a dictatorial government; the “People” would be unable to protect themselves from criminals, from militias or even continue the time-honored pastime of hunting;  further, many believe that any action by any government restricting the right of the individual to own any type of weapon he or she desires would be but a first step  toward the end of gun ownership–in a time of much crime in cities both large and small; this position holds much sway with the leaders of the National Rifle Association (”NRA”), one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the United States; this group received a great victory in recent years when the Congress was persuaded not to renew the ban upon assault weapons–which means that any citizen may again own and use an automatic weapon designed only for killing human beings;

 

 

B. Democratic Party asserts the Second Amendment was intended to prohibit Congress from disarming the State militias; and that the decision of the Supreme Court of June 28, 2010 in McDonald vs. Chicago et al. (No. 08-1521) is an aberration purporting to overrule decades of controlling precedent and will likely be overturned by either the Congress or the Court itself shortly;  In McDonald, op cit., however, the final result is not yet known, as the Supreme Court has returned the case to the lower courts to determine which, if any, governmental powers of the states or cities may be exercised upon the individual’s right to own guns–which was the narrow focus of the McDonald case.

 

 

XI. GAY RIGHTS, GAY MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION

 

 

A.  Republican Party asserts that it is heresy and against the very will of God for persons of the same gender to have sex and that such is prohibited both by the Holy Bible  and “Natural Law;” that,  therefore, there must be no public approval or recognition of such ungodly acts and or relationships, whether referenced as marriage or as “civil unions;” to allow such persons to adopt children is wrong for all of the above reasons set forth above, but it is even more evil in that it purposefully exposes innocent children to such evil influences and may lead them to believe that such practices are accepted by the Almighty;

 

B. Democratic Party asserts that gays have the same rights and privileges” as any  Americans and, since homosexuality is not a disease but, rather, a pre-disposition, or psychological mindset that makes some humans prefer the “company” of those of the same gender, prohibiting such relationships or the right to raise children would be an unconstitutional discrimination.

 

 

            These are not all of the issues which may divide us, but they are a good start.  These, and perhaps a few more, are the ‘big questions” which need to be discussed and debated–not the subject of outrage.  And they can show that we really do not differ from our neighbors on most important issues.

 

 

Don Switzer

Rogers, Arkansas

(c) July 29, 2009

(Amended July 8, 2010)